Tell America To Google The Facts!

Another Way To Follow The Campaign: Dipity’s Election Center Timelines, TechCrunch. 

Want to follow every Tweet, blog post, YouTube video and Flickr photo put out by the Obama or McCain camps? Now you can follow the campaigns in a handy Dipity Election Center timeline.

Here's a tip to all you fans of videos that feature young people singing and chanting praises to Barack Obama: Download them to your computer before they go viral because the videos will disappear as soon as the inevitable wave of ridicule in the blogosphere hits a fever pitch.

Two cases of such viral embarrassment have happened in less than a week.

The first episode occurred soon after The Drudge Report linked to a video called "Sing For Change," which featured elementary-aged children singing about hope, change and all things Obama. The video was broadly condemned. Even the nonpartisan blog PrezVid criticized the "creepy California parents" who made their kids sing words they couldn't possibly understand in political context.

Apparently stung by the criticism, the creator of the video, Obama supporter Kathy Sawada, made it "private" on YouTube. When YouTube users began attacking her in the comments, she deleted most of the comments but made the clip public again. That didn't last long, though. Now it's private again. (I downloaded the original and posted excerpts at Eyeblast.tv just in case.)

A few days later, another video called "Obama Youth" went viral. It features young black men from the Urban Community Leadership Academy in Kansas City, Mo., marching as they chant "Alpha, Omega," a phrase with messianic meaning. The youngsters also rotely recite Obama's "Yes We Can" motto and presidential plans, and they give him premature credit for who they hope to become.

That video began to spread online last week and hit its viral stride over the weekend. Today, the YouTube user who uploaded the video, presumably an Obama critic based on the video description, pulled it without explanation. (I have a copy of that one, too.)

The good news is that once someone pushes the publish button online, it's impossible to put the video genie back in the offline bottle. You can still watch complete versions of both "Sing For Change" and "Obama Youth" on YouTube, and "Sing For Change" already is the subject of parody after parody.

Obama's online October surprise will continue from now until Election Day and beyond.

This past week, I traded messages via YouTube with TheMouthPeace, the semi-anonymous creator of the "Burning Down The House" YouTube video(s).

Here's my interview...

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Name: [left blank]
Age: 35
Occupation: Consultant - Management, Marketing, Economics, Organizational Development, etc.
City, State: Boston, Massachusetts Area (can you believe that?)

1. What does your moniker "TheMouthPeace" mean?

To be honest, I made it up on the fly. That said, there is a deeper meaning. I am doing this to have a voice. I felt that simply posting on blogs and getting the firestorm of visceral ad hominem attacks that accompanies that was not really the way to make a difference. There was no way I was going to get an idea like this out in such a piecemeal way.

At the same time, I want to be informative. Even if people disagree with me, they will hopefully come away smarter than they came in. So from that perspective I did not want it to be a place for bombastic, frothing attacks. There is plenty of that on YouTube. I wanted to appeal to people's calmer, more rational side in a compelling and persuasive way.

There may be a few instances where I throw in a dig at somebody that might pushing the line (Harry Reid, for example), but I generally avoid the noise that you see in so many YouTube videos.

It occurs on both sides. For example, calling Barack Obama by his middle name (Barack Hussein Obama) constantly is entirely factual, but will still be seen as a cheap shot by some and you lose people that way. They stop listening.

If the intent is to rally people who are likely to agree with you, that is one thing. If your intent is to persuade people who might or might not agree with you, you need a different approach.

The same goes for an number of pro-Obama videos. They go over the top by attacking McCain's age or his honor, which you immediately know is a bit of cheap shot. I try to stay closer to what I think might appeal to an independent voter, yet still make a strong enough case to move the needle of persuasion based entirely on the facts.

So, long story short Mouth = My Voice Peace = Calm, Rational, Fact-Driven Ideas

2. How long have you been blogging?

Not long. Perhaps 3-4 months, but it only accelerated recently on YouTube.

I have a very sparse blog that I simply have not kept up with. Although I am facile enough with writing and love to do so, it is images, text and sound that seems to be a more comfortable medium for this type of communication. Now, I can be on everyone's blog, not just my own. At the same time, I am not a perfectionist with the production values. Professionals would probably mock my videos, but I am a one-man show. I do not have the luxury of video editing suites, and the facts simply do not need to be dressed up. They sell themselves.

3. How long have you been making YouTube videos?

See above.

4. Your video "Burning Down the House" (v.1) had nearly 1 million views before it was pulled for a copyright violation by Time Warner. In version 3, you take on Time Warner directly noting that they have supported Barack Obama with hundreds of thousands of dollars. You also claim First Amendment protection under the Fair Use Act. Can you explain this a bit more for our readers?

I think all told we are approaching 2 million views on this video in it's various formats and locations. For a 10+ minute video it honestly shocks me. YouTube registered around 1.2M views (my account showed a higher count before they downed it). Subsequent postings have generated nearly another 500,000 views on YouTube. It has also found it's way to just about every other video site. One can only guess, but I suspect that is at least several hundred thousand views as well. It still has a month to keep going. We need to keep it going until election day.

With regard to Time-Warner, I think there are 2 areas that upset me. Number one, is the selectivity in prosecution. Every piece of music that I used was available on YouTube in some format, generally music videos, posted by individuals. I actually obtained the music directly from those sources on YouTube, so the music was already there and had been there for quite some time. It simply did not seem to bother them until this.

However, once I used the music in a video expressing political views it becomes a problem for them. This is, of course, ironic in the sense that this is exactly the type of copyright use that is allowable under the Fair Use Doctrine. Many do not know about this element of copyright law.

The Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code) addresses this. Section 107 contains a list of purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work might be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

So longs as my use is not of a commercial nature, seeks to educate, and does not materially diminish the value of the copyrighted work (I bet iTunes downloads for Dire Straits are up this week) then it qualifies as "Fair" use.

Any first year law student knows this. My belief is that this was selective, and perhaps unlawful, prosecution of their copyright claim, given that this clearly meets the Fair Use standard set out in Federal Statutes. If anything, this promoted some pretty good music that people might be inclined to go buy. Then you have to question motive.

This is one of those cases where you really do not have to be a lawyer to see through this. Their pattern of political contributions makes it clear why they acted so swiftly and with such little regard for the Fair Use doctrine. Their intent was probably to disrupt my efforts, which they did, but only temporarily. I think it has enraged people to action in a way that is counterproductive for them. The original video is still available on numerous other sites, many of whom are more thoughtful in executing copyright claims than YouTube.

The Fair Use Doctrine is nicely summarized here.

5. How did you distribute this video?

I put it up on YouTube, of course. I felt like this was my best work yet, but I actually waited a day before posting it widely. When I decided I was happy with it, I simply went to a blogroll and went down the list posting it on any comment forum that seemed reasonably relevant. I added a line or two about the video. I put it on perhaps 20 blogs and was ready to do more when the view count just took off like no other video I had made.

Part of the viral nature of it, I feel, was due to the strong call to action at the end which communicated how important it is to get our message out by whatever means necessary.

Secondly, I think the content of it has never been presented in such a way. The facts of this video are potentially game-changing in this election if we can find a way to make these points clearly. Very few Republicans understood how this happened, while even fewer Democrats were ready to stretch their mind in that direction. When assembled, the evidence is quite overwhelming that the acceleration of housing was timed exactly to the point when large volumes of sub-prime mortgages were being issued. The CRA expansion is what opened that Pandora's box, and the Democrats in Congress blocked any effort to restrain what emerged.

Related to that, I think it triggered a strong moment of epiphany for many people who never really understood why cab drivers were being given $500,000 mortgages. Well, there is a reason and it starts with CRA and ends with Fannie Mae. The dots connect and suddenly the lights turn on. Then anger sets in because I think the left has been taking potshots and Republicans were not fighting back. Nobody knew how because many did not really know how this evolved.

6. Would you consider yourself a policy expert?

Well, I would hesitate to use that moniker for myself. Experts too easily fall in love with their own theories and close off alternatives. The world is full of bad advice that started with an expert. I am sure Fannie and Freddie had plenty of "experts" working for them and we see how well that worked out? Too many experts focus too narrowly on too few ideas. Things today move too fast for that.

You have to be a generalist with a strong core discipline to do anything truly innovative continuously over a long period of time.

I am an Economist by education, and Economics is as much a philosophy as anything else. You see the world through the lens of competing incentives and how they drive good, bad, and unintended outcomes. Through that lens I think I understand policy much more than your typical journalist, which is a very low bar to cross.

I admit, I do study these things a lot, but I study a lot of things. I would position myself as inquisitive and motivated. I had known about this issue because I had studied redlining in college. In many cases it truly was unfair discrimination, which of course should be prosecuted. Nobody disputes that.

Yet as we know, the worst thing for lawyers is when companies start obeying the law. They run out of victims. In this case, litigation became a form of harassment on the part of ACORN and others. Banks were soon being pressured to make loans that simply were not viable on the merits, regardless of race. This happened throughout the early and mid-1990s

Once CRA was expanded in 1995 to include new sub-prime mortgage-backed securities, it gave banks a way to avoid litigation, yet move the risks of bad loans off their balance sheet and into mortgage-backed securities. Sub-prime MBS' are not bad investments as long as home values go up so fast. People in trouble just borrow against equity or move out easily due to the sellers' market. But what happens when the merry-go-round eventually stops?

Well, guess what? Now those loans are on the taxpayer's balance sheet. To make things worse, this did very little to help minority families. On the contrary it has been incredibly destructive because whole communities have been decimated and a whole generation have yet another reason not to trust the system. There are no winners, only losers. Far too many are the most vulnerable among us. The wealthy will survive. The middle-class and low-income families is where much of the real pain is, which ironically is whom this policy was intended to serve.

7. Will you continue to make videos? What's the next issue?

Yes. I am working on another related to this issue. I also expect to cover Energy and Taxes. Education and Health Care are likely as well, but that depends on the news cycle. The focus right now is the economy, and that is where the most misleading assumptions and statements by politicians seem to exist.

8. Anything you would like to add?

Well, I simply hope people help spread the message and try to engage persuadable voters on common ground. Facts help, so know them well. The facts in this case are damning enough. We often forget who decides these elections, and it is never the ideologues on either side. It is the median voter, and they are predisposed to distrust both parties. They are acutely able to screen out the spin, and there is plenty of that. Stick to the facts and we will do fine.

I think the key is to appeal what independents are ready to believe about each party. Independents all probably would agree that the Democrats are more likely to fight for things like "affordable mortgages" with near-reckless abandon. That is not a hard sell because it is absolutely true, and centrists will accept that as fact.

Now all you need to do is show them what a bad idea it was because these mortgages were not affordable at all. They were time bombs and they hurt the very people they were intended to help. The evidence is confirmed everywhere you look.

That is why it is so important that we fight back against this misleading charge that Republican-led deregulation caused this. Why? Because the independent voter sees an economy gone wild everywhere they look, and they are predisposed to believe that Republicans always want fewer regulation. In this case, the true facts destroy that myth and we have to show it.

Ironically, the truth in this case is exactly the opposite of what that median voter is predisposed to believe, which is why McCain is behind and the moment. This is why he needs to fight back hard on this, and soon.

If we can get the truth regarding the simple facts out there, it not only discredits the misleading charges Barack Obama has been making about this, it puts him in "explanation mode."

If you are explaining yourself, then you are losing. We need to make them explain why they opposed regulation of Fannie and Freddie for so long. Even Bill Clinton claims to have been resisted by Democrats in Congress on this point. It took a catastrophe to break their will. Why? Tell us why!

I ask that everybody help me make them explain why they allowed this to happen to all of us. The media will not ask them, so we have to do their job for them. We do that by taking it to the streets, and the Internet is the place to do it.

::: END :::

YouTube user TheMouthPeace, which is the YouTube channel for blog, The Midpoint: Politics from the Rational Center, offers a solid 09:59 lesson on why America's economy is in the tank.

Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

CQ's Eric Pfeiffer points to a YouTube clip of President George W. Bush speaking at a fundraiser for Republican Congressional candidate Pete Olson.

In the clip, POTUS talks about the housing market, saying "...Wall Street got drunk [points to camera crew noting, 'one reason I asked you to turn off your TV cameras']. It got drunk and now it has a hangover. The question in how long will it sober up..."

The clip isn't particularly newsworthy. It's not a "macaca" moment. But the clip is indicative of the changing times and how even at "high-dollar" fundraisers -- candidates and public officials need to realize that they may be among friends, but they could also be among people with a YouTube channel and a camera on their cell phone.

As an effective deployment of a modern media strategy, I want to share a recent example engineered by, among others, the Washington State Republican Party putting the hammer to Barack Obama after a *major* gaffe while campaigning in Oregon. I've been given exclusive insight on how this all went down.

Let's dig in...

On Monday at 2:23 PM, Ben Smith of the Politico.com broke the news of Barack who-needs-experience-when-we-can-have-hope Obama making a major gaffe on the campaign trail when he admitted having no knowledge of the Hanford Site, "a decommissioned nuclear production complex on the Columbia River in south-central Washington operated by the United States government."

Ben embedded the following YouTube video of Barack's gaffe which was uploaded anonymously by a brand new YouTube user, IRFSA8654. Natch.

Blogs4McCain.com quickly picked up on the video.

With a hat-tip to Blogs4McCain, Michelle Malkin picked up on the story and added valuable context to the argument by noting that John McCain had been asked the same question and knew all about it. Typical experience wielded by The Mac.

Someone must have tipped off the Associated Press because they were next to pile on Barack.

Today, Fox News' Major Garrett carried the package, added some context, and had this to say:

=PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT=

Republicans immediately pounced on this as a sign of Barack Obama's inexperience as a national candidate. Saying -- how could you not know anything about the Hanford nuclear waste site? It's the best known, most contaminated one in the United States. It's one the Department of Energy is spending almost $2 billion a year to clean up. Those clean-up dates are going to be missed. There's a huge negotiation in the state of Washington about how to extend those deadlines. It's a big issue there. How could you not know anything about it?

So while the Obama campaign says it is genuine and disarming, Republicans fire back -- it's inexperience. And that's going to be one of the core divides in this general election campaign. Barack Obama's genuineness, his likability, his willingness to talk straight with voters vs. Republicans saying he may be able to do all those things but if he's not experienced enough, how reliable a President is he actually going to be?

Small issues, small incident in this town hall in Pendleton, Oregon, but it's going to be something that will be playing out in the campaign throughout.

Today, MoveRed.org, the "youth coalition (ages 16-28) of the King County Republican Party," released this stinging video pulling it all together:

In my opinion, the case-study above shows how you can take a national candidate making a mistake on a local issue and turn that into a national news story. And the best part is that this is just the beginning of this story getting out.

The Washington State Republican Party has just blasted an email to its list asking them to "forward the message" and help make a donation to keep it coming.

Indeed, Porridge, to all of those who had a hand in this one. You're making us proud.

[Cross-posted at TechPresident.]

Today, one of the Republican Party's fastest rising stars, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, joined New Orleans Democratic Mayor Ray Nagin to announce that they are working with YouTube and Google to "bring American voices into a forum with Presidential nominees."

Along with the New Orleans Consortium, Jindal and Nagin plan to host the forum on September 18, 2008 at the Morial Convention Center in New Orleans.

Appropriately, here's the YouTube announcement:

Let's hope all of the candidates decide to participate.

Two things worth thinking on:

1. For the past two Presidential events, CNN was the official media sponsor with YouTube. So far, no media carrier has been listed. We shouldn't assume that this means that CNN is out of the running for the gig, but given how CNN handled the Republican debate last fall (see the Save the Debate Coalition statement), I'd be surprised to see them get it.

2. As Dan Manatt blogged last December, the Commission on Presidential Forums has already made it clear that to increase participation, the "Internet" will play a major role in the second commissioned debate - which is a "town hall style" debate:

The second departure from past CPD formats will be the introduction of internet access to the presidential town meeting debate. Questions solicited by Internet will be included with those from citizens on the stage with the candidates.

The second CPD debate is scheduled for Tuesday, October 7 at Belmont University, Nashville, TN. Will YouTube and Google be there? Time will tell.

One thing is clear, I'm heading to both New Orleans and Nashville.

Tattletale John McCain has launched a new web ad via YouTube titled, "Heroes." You have to watch the video to "get" the title.

This video is a nice virtual complement to McCain's "bio" tour and will help tell us another side of the John McCain story. Porridge.

However, I do have one question: Is that incense burning throughout or something else? I don't get the reference.

YouTube is expanding its popular YouChoose platform to Senators, Congressman, and state candidates. To apply for a "Politician" account, you can download the application here (PDF).

Features for a "Politician" account include:

• Official designation as a "Politician" channel.
• Enhanced design and branding capabilities, including a personalized banner advertisement to be
displayed across the top of the channel that links back to a home website.
• Extended video upload capability (extended length uploads, and up to 300 MB per video file).

To receive an account, you have to meet several pieces of criteria that you can find on the application.

I asked YouTube News & Politics editor Steve Grove about expanding the YouChoose platform and he said, "We're expanding our You Choose '08 platform beyond the presidential race to include Senate and House races - we want candidates down the ballot to reach out to voters in the same way that the candidates at the top of the ballot do. In today's political environment, you can't not have a YouTube channel."

How true. The political world has shifted.

Republican Senate candidate Jim Ogonowski has a tough election cycle taking on Senator John Kerry. In fact, he's going to need all of the help he can get from a nationwide online grassroots effort. Even $10 will make a difference.

The first step in building that effort is to generate a little buzz online. To do so, his campaign released a hilarious little YouTube vid worth a click:

This is going to be a fun race to watch.